Treevan 🇦🇺

I hope that people who say “plant locally-adapted” plants read this.

What makes you smarter than people studying these problems? A single example of a plant introduced in 1963?

You can’t just declare your opinion to be right. And you can’t ignore climate change to suit your argument. Nor can you deny that urban areas are very diverse in exotic tree species and that won’t change because you want it to. A single comment isn’t putting the genie back in the bottle, nor stopping climate change, or land degradation/clearing, or new pests and diseases.

Stay optimistic though.

Is the sigh based on invasive species bring present from the early lovefest of carrying everything around and then the agricultural lovefest of intentionally moving everything around and you imagine it could happen again?

Or is the sigh that you wished climate change wasn’t real and you could go back to the good old days where indigenous species would just grow like they did for the previous 10,000 years?

The climate is changing. It sucks and these articles are the result of it. Rather than willy-nilly introducing species like yesteryear, this is going to be measured and studied to increase a functioning tree cover’s survival. I feel as though your sigh is a hindrance, rather than a help. What does the sigh mean?

Consider a summary statement though. Not a big fan of a link with no text.

Yeah, I get that but, personally, I feel, the creation of biochar is supposed to be a clean, smoke-free process so as to make the storage of the carbon the most efficient.

I can understand the manure retort experiment (my grass burn was also an experiment but not something I did again) but it would have been nice to have seen a clean burn attempt. Since he was picking manure up off the ground right next to a cow’s arse, you can’t even guarantee low moisture fuel or feedstock.

Maybe an airgap at the base of the flue might allow a secondary burn inside there.

Well, if he was doing science, couldn’t he use a clean, dry fuel for the heating part and keep the manure in the retort part?

I’ve flame shielded Vetiver grass before, it wasn’t smoky. It was just fast and tricky to burn right.

For other readers that might be questioning…

Spoiler: He ate it. Offscreen though, it could have been a granola bar.

Will an organic matter turn to charcoal during pyrolysis.

Tune in for over 8 minutes to find out the answer.

Spoiler: Yes.

!cdr@slrpnk.net

There was an article a few days back with microplastics working through “untouched by humans” layers of lake silt.

Stay positive, friend.

My site has some international visitors. Mostly poor farmers though I guess scale and millions of users doesn’t come into the equation but sure, whatever you say.

https://www.theonion.com/how-bad-for-the-environment-can-throwing-away-one-plast-1819571260

Already done. Plus all the tree planting and biochar I do.

Perhaps your argument is a foundational one whereas other people are already chasing the diminishing returns. As an ethos, I feel that everything one should do is striving to that lower goal but there is no shame in attacking your agenda as a priority checklist, it makes sense financially.

I still don’t know why we can’t have low energy websites as the norm but certainly there are low-hanging fruit to grab elsewhere. Definitely not denying any of that.

Somewhat related anecdote: When I do my environmental work in the field and biomass needs to be moved, most people tend to move it downhill as that’s easier. I always move biomass uphill as I introduce energy into the system rather than the usual entropy (nutrients flow downhill). Most people don’t understand that argument, it’s beyond them, they think “it doesn’t matter”. Just like low energy websites, it’s the little things…

I get you but I’ve already done all those things.

Ordering them by priority is fine but this is more of an ethos than a checklist. Everything that one could do could follow the same philosophy by shaving off energy usage where one can. Doesn’t matter if it’s a hot water tap, a walk to the shops instead of driving, sitting under a tree instead of aircon, or designing a website to send less data. They are all the same because the goal is use less and they all matter. Does that make sense?

Your comment is more succinct than mine but that was my intent.

If your webpage doesn’t need to load things for any important purpose, then actively make it lighter. It doesn’t hurt anyone and is one simple act that adds to the whole.

As for eco-certification, at least someone is trying to make it obvious. Good for them.

I’m not saying it isn’t but like said, something is better than nothing. The doomerism involved in saying the individual can’t make any choices doesn’t me feel solarpunk.

Everyone should be aware of the bleeding obvious but if individuals want to make changes, then let them? I like to plant thousands of trees each year and I definitely know that isn’t going to save the planet but I still do it because it makes me feel good.

To counter all the negative comments, I think the idea of making websites low energy (think solar.lowtech as an extreme example) is a good design principle. Yeah, in the big scheme of things it means not much but something is better than nothing.

https://www.websitecarbon.com/

This has been discussed before a while back. When it came up, I measured my page that is an environmental site and blog and it got an A+ rating. My intent in choosing the theme was to make it low data as possible (with my technological illiteracy) and I think the rating reflects that. No one wants or needs heavy webpages for a majority of them, of course exceptions apply. In this day and age, the heavier they are, the more data they are actively stealing.

I’m always hesitant on these systems without water testing “certificates”. Removing turbidity and removing bacteria is a different kettle, one is invisible and far more dangerous.

That said, there is plenty of evidence that worms do break down viruses and bacteria so potentially the system is safe to do surface water. I wouldn’t be playing, drinking, or eating root crops from it, but it’s definitely better than shitting straight into a creek.

We have some worm farm systems here in Aus but they need to be approved by the Local/State Government (Victorian certs: https://www.epa.vic.gov.au/for-community/environmental-information/water/about-wastewater/onsite-wastewater-systems) you reside in. A couple of examples:

https://www.wormfarm.com.au/domestic-septic-tank-systems/

https://www.zenplumb.com/wormworx/wastewater/info

https://www.wormsmart.com.au/

Even my greywater treatment got worms into it and they are thriving. This is a biochar/plant/worm system so 3x the cleaning power? I don’t know, I can just make up wild claims on the internet. Good enough to drink! Trust me!

If you lived in Australia, you would get a traineeship into Bush Regeneration (Conservation and Ecosystem/Land Management certificate) which you would segue into a job as most companies use the trainees as trial workers and keep the good ones. The traineeship pays less but costs nothing.

By the time you’re finished, you have a cert and experience and can look into other work. You really need more education if you want more money but if you’re happy to kick shit in the field, then the experience is usually enough.